Needs Cleanup

Raptor Jesus is not a meme, I've been on 4chan for a few years and I have only seen it a few times. Also, the 'Evil Embassador' description for the Gendo meme needs to be removed, as nobody refers to Gendo as the Evil Embassador except maybe the person who wrote it.

"A few years?" So longer than 4chan has existed, then? Raptor Jesus has been around for ALMOST a year (he was the 900,000 post on /b/). Moreover, the site DOES continue to function even while you're not there, so maybe you're just missing it.

You're a fucking idiot if you don't know that Raptorjesus is a meme. Just because people don't post it a thousand times a day doesn't mean it isn't a meme. Like cockmongler. Cockmongler is a classic and established meme, yet it doesn't get posted much. Memes only really get posted alot when they first catch on.

VTEC?

So what about VTEC kicked in, Yo?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think only memes that spread to other websites should be listed here. Ashibakatock 03:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing as how it's all but impossible to verify anything that actually happens on 4chan, due to post pruning, only memes that have been notably seen outside of 4chan should go in the article. Kuhan 09:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Some in the Tuner community have adopted this meme to often degrade and label Honda owners whom claim their cars can go fast when it reality, they do not. It techniclly qualifies because it's use has gone outside of 4Chan, abeit it's more of a reality thing than a website thing.

Robert Bopkins != moot

Robert Bopkins is the name of a proffessor at Stanford, and the same man now known as "Old Moot" (curly black hair and glasses). Moot's real name has never been revealed. 71.224.246.205 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't you moron. Eric J. Ross is a Stanford graduate student, who appears in those photos. Nice try though! -moot 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently his first name is Doug, since moot is (or was) wordfiltered to doug, and on the front page, he posts a "dougnote". SAlpsu 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he got that from the guy who keeps vandalizing this article by changing moot to doug. MrVacBob 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Big deal. It's not as though the narcissistic, florid-faced runt's *worth* talking about.

January 10th situation

Should something be added about the site being down today because of (apparently) a ddos attack?--88.105.251.88 23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the result of a DDoS attack? I mean, 4chan goes down all the time. It's nothing new...--Sporkot 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard people talking about it being due to a DDoS on GameFAQs (not a reliable source, I know) and this crash seems to be different to the usual kind. We might see when it's back up and moot posts something.--88.105.251.88 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"I mean, 4chan goes down all the time. It's nothing new...". Bingo. Don't add speculations here. The site went down because of the same problems we always have--it was just a coincidence. -moot 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

/b/ Forced Anonymous

The /b/ imageboard once again has forced anonymous posting. (January 29, 2006) Just an anonymous remembering reading about it on wikipedia, thought I should bring it up.

There should be an entry about the epic sticky in /B/ yesterday. "Is this reality" countered with "Is this fantasy" turned into a bohemian rhapsody thread which in turn ate god's face.

That thread went downhill after I stickied it :( -moot 04:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Things I'd like to know about

Where is Sarah Connor, A huge gaping vagina the size of a hallway(aka mordor), Tom Delay, What happened to /F/, A better explanation of just what the hell is going on on that damn website. There's a lot of n00bs who'd like to know.

WHERE IS SARAH CONNOR is a quote from Terminator, and is a fake wordfilter placed randomly in the middle of words to confuse n00bs so they thWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR. AHGVTSOAH comes from the Boromir quote "One does not simply walk into mordor". This was change to AHGVTSOAH because someone walking into one of those is disgustingly funny. Tom Delay's face is reference to Cover Tom, who has a similar facial expression. /f/ was an April Fools Joke, and an attempt to get rid of furries. Hope that helWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR. SAlpsu 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask on the board itself, you'll just get dozens of people saying "lol lurk moar"... but I agree with you. I wish there were a meta-4chan where people could talk about 4chan itself in a non-4chan-ish setting. -- DocSigma 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TCC-Chan?

I thought it was THC-chan, since the character is a pothead, etc. I mean, I've seen it as TCC-chan since the initial posting, but you know how /b/tards aren't bound by restrictions like fact. --Sporkot 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really belongs here- it's kind of the 420chan mascot.

Now that you mention it, you're right. I was just wondering what the right name was if it were to be kept at all.--Sporkot 05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TCC stands for "The Crackhead Clubhouse", the drug discussion forum on SomethingAwful which originally used this mascot. 420chan has indeed adopted her, but kept the name. TCC images are occassionally posted to /b promising cp floods etc on 420chan. Fortunately these are virtually always lies to troll pedos. 420chan /b features a disturbing amount of loli though due to Kirtaner's relatively lenient moderation.

Raptor Jesus

Was this deleted as a popular meme? I've re-added it as I think it's a worthy addition - far worthier than some others on there in fact. The text needs expanding and stuff, I only wrote a very rough description. Tphi 15:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I WAS BORN INTO A WORLD..

Should we add the 'I WAS BORN INTO A WORLD YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND'? It's become popular in /b/ (in where someone posts a picture of violet from UltaViolet or whatever with the caption above, followed by random images being post with the same, or slightly altered caption) for about three days.

See if it's still there in a month. In my opinion, the memes listed should be limited to just those that have been around long enough to be truly notable. Tphi 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

not4chan

Is it really shut down? Anyone who can do a whois search knows that it is hosted on the same servers as 4chan is. I, and others, just assumed it went down with cgi--193.195.185.254 21:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it seems to be back up. Must've been recent, they're still talking about it. --SheeEttin 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was never 'shut down.' They were just switching servers around.

SHII

Shii this article is crap and has a ton of errors and inaccuracies. I thought you were supposed to be maintaining this :( WHY SHII WHY. --moot 07:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm on Wikibreak. Also, a lot of this is unverifiable but it breaks 4chan's heart to see their precious towercat erased from the site. (Someone archive it) Ashibakatock 18:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Megatokyo Loss

As it's pretty much irrelevant to the history. (The fight: Fred allegedly created hentai images, and managed to get all traces of them erased from the internet. 4Chan/b/ has, as of yet, not been able to find the images.)

Very Relevant. The Day /b/ died. NEVAR FORGET.

Fact: after the colocation of the servers, /b/'s retention was drastically lowered due to an oversight. No threads about anything were deleted for any reason pertaining to Fred Gallagher. Fred Gallagher has never even contacted 4chan. Just another case of /b/tards jumping to conclusions!

/b/ did find the images though..

Something on the same topic has been readded, but I don't think it should be there. I really don't think anything should be considered notable unless it's still remembered next month, at least. MrVacBob 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how /b/ "lost"--88.105.248.92 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

/b/ however, found a page that had the title, "Blurred" in http://www.archive.org, which is apparently the title of the loli manga that Fred wrote. But images were not recorded, so nothing remains proven.

05/08/06 - /b/ managed to find around 6 images from the blurred gallery, and some internet archive links prove they are legit

As for the remembered next month, the /b/ board on 4chan remembers it to this day, and it is still a very hot button issue. Even mentioning it starts up major arguments. The fred images have been verified by internet archive links. I can add more info but i'd rather not, as /b/ has a habit of attacking things they do not agree with. Megatokyo and fredart's forums were took a major beating sometime earlier today, they were forced to disable new user registration as a result of it! 69.145.36.133 13:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Major beating my ass. MTF barely registered anything at all, and many of your trolls were swiftly dealt with by the moderation team. The only reason I was aware of your presence was a locked thread in one of the board sections. Seriously, it was not notable. Stop adding this junk into the article. --Sporkot 06:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For some closure on this, Fred's blogged up his side of the story on the strips for this week. --J-Kama-Ka-C 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cracky-Chan

The link to 420chan in the cracky section has been removed for possible 'privacy violation' reasons. I disagree, since :

Cracky voluntarily made the 420chan posts in public

They contain no new personal information

The whole point of the posts was to call for an *end* to people "stalking" her. I.e. publicising this link should lead to decreased 'stalking', not more. It has had this effect on 420chan.

Also the "see below" regarding her age no longer makes sense without this context. Again, she freely made her approximate age in the photos public (without even being asked in fact) and this is important as it means the semi-nude pictures in the "witch" series are legally dubious in most countries.

I'll support the reporting of that post appearing, but not the crackypedia link. MrVacBob 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, explanation now minus Crackypedia link.

I read the cracky chan story on here and another place and I'm still unsure about it. I know she had face shots of her with a clown face and mouse ears and she needed dental work. Aside from that what exactly happened? I heard at another source she only posted a few pictures and then people found them on her live journal? In this talk page you say she posted naked pictures of herself in 4chan--is this true? DyslexicEditor 12:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I found a picture archive [1] and an art archive [2]DyslexicEditor 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

-- DyslexicEditor : There are topless shots in the "witch" series, but CrackyPedia doesn't carry them, and they may be underage. She never posted them to 4chan, only to the scarecrowmaiden LJ, but this was quickly discovered by trolltalk et al and they were subsequently posted by others to 4chan. Cracky says in the 420chan thread the only pics she ever posted to 4chan were the early "sup 4chan" etc ones, a moment of madness due to being somewhat drunk on vodka.

Those ones where she had the mouse ears and raggedy anne makeup I think are the best ones. If I was rich I'd buy the rights and make a cartoon out of them and I think it would get ratings. I didn't care for the rest. I think topless and 16 is legal in the UK. DyslexicEditor 12:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

April Furs Day?

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/April_Furs_Day Can someone verify this? Did this truly happen? If so, I think it should be added here. DyslexicEditor 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did happen. However, I don't know anyone else who might have archived threads/taken screenshots while /fur/ was up besides Encyclopedia Dramatica. Actually, ask on 4chan itself, preferrably in /r/ or /b/. I'm sure someone has it. --Sporkot 00:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Shii

:10bux: says he means you. I guess that he is (well...was, until now) unaware that you *are* Shii. I think it might be worthwhile to have something on you in this article because of your contributions, but I also fear it will bring much drama and revert wars. --Sporkot 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do that much for 4chan really. The article mentions that I wrote the crappy board software and that is about all which is notable about me. Ashibakatock 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then this http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Shii is wrong just like most of the site. DyslexicEditor 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point of Encyclopedia Dramatica then. It's a joke site. Their entire aim is to mock and parody internet phenomena, so talking about the validity of their articles is rather ridiculous.--Sporkot 04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But there's nothing funny on the site except the furry jokes. Their admins revert anything non-furry that is actually funny. Perhaps I'm too old for that site. They list their admins birthdates and most are children -- 7-11 slurpies make up half their website's joke material and they love those repeated "jokes". DyslexicEditor 12:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm trying to make this article more accurate and coherent. Thank god the memes were removed and linked back to WikiWorld. This article shouldn't be a meme repository, there are other sites for that. Fixed some inaccuracies, will work on fixing whatever is left and grammar later. --moot 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) \\

Well a link to another site is good until the page goes down. Before you did that, I was thinking of suggesting that the memes be alphabetized. As they were in random order it's hard to find anything. DyslexicEditor 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The page looks a lot cleaner without the memes listed. Do you really expect the wikiworld page to go down? Tphi 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with taking the memes off this article, I was thinking about a separate page for a list of 4chan memes, it worked well for YTMND, and I think it would for a website as big as 4chan. Nightmare X 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Memes back into the article

The memes should be back in the article. They're verified, they're funny and they are important to give somebody a basic information of what is 4chan about. This article without the Memes-List is basically like a Video Game Preview without Screenshots.

They are unverified and irrelevant. Ashibakatock 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. YTMND has an entire article about its fads. True, YTMND is somewhat defined by its fads and memes, but how is /b/ any different, except in that threads eventually disappear? I think that comment is an example of poor consistency. So unless you have a burning desire to see the YTMND fads page shut down I confess I fail to see your logic. --82.108.163.130 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's so important, then make a separate article for it. I'm of the opinion that 4chan memes, while funny, are really not all that important or encyclopedic because of the rather small (compared to YTMND) number of people who experience them. --Sporkot 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Which internet are you using? The amount of people visiting and posting on /b/ every hour is in the tens of thousands at least. Go and look up some site statistics before you try to decide what's important and what's not.

I think there should be an article all about memes and things like the whole "april furs day" (which turns is verified by wikifur). Then the memes would be there (and sometimes people want a reference for them so we should have them somewhere (even on a web page)). Maybe there alredy is a meme article for 4chan, I forgot. DyslexicEditor 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I think an article for the 4chan memes is not a bad idea, indeed, it will help us keep this article clean from them, as they take far too much space Nightmare X 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the verifiability policy at WP:V. The memes are cataloged at WikiWorld and should stay there. Ashibakatock 06:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it should just be somewhere and referenced from the article. DyslexicEditor 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhere, and it is linked to in the article. Ashibakatock 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

somewhere, see. "Oh, we're too cool to do things on our own. It's not as if we're a free encyclopedia living on our users contributing information and stuff, but HAY, we can link to external sources any time of day!" - Great Job, Mr. Nazimod. Wikipedia either needs Memes back in this Article or an own article on memes.

Or maybe it's because linking them makes the article a hell of a lot more streamlined and easier to read. In fact, most of the memes that were on this article were already aped from the WikiWorld page, so what's the point? --Sporkot 05:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is encyclopedic about a list of memes? It does not meet WP:V (and borderline on WP:NOR) and is against WP:NOT. This is 4chan's entry in an something that purports to be an encyclopedia not 4chan's own wiki. kotepho 06:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Help I don't score women and my wikipenis is stuck in my wikiasshole because I was reading the rules book at 10pm and mum caught me :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.13.126 (talk • contribs).

You should go see a doctor for that. kotepho 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's alright guys, Wikipedia is just too good for 4chan. Doyel 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents, the memes need to be in the article, at least a few of the base ones. The wikiworld site is down 90% of the time, making it nearly useless. I fail to see how the memes are "unverifiable" - go to 4chan's /b/ board for about 10 minutes and you will see most of the memes. TheGreatTK 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's still original research, which is also against Wikipedia's policies. --Sporkot 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:: I disagree. A link to 4chan's /b/ board would suffice as a source, the memes are posted there, and therefore verifiable. WP:NOR States that: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.". Nothing is proposed here, just a statement of easily verifiable fact. Also, WP:NOT states that: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." - One cannot have a proper encyclopedic view of 4chan without providing *some* kind of information on the memes. In fact, without knowing some base information about the memes, 4chan is downright confusing. 4chan's memes have "escaped" more than once and become Internet Phenomenon. This should qualify as historical impact. One more thing, a link to a site that is down (at least at the time of writing this) is no help at all, and probably needs to be removed due to its dodginess. A suggestion, at the risk of contradicting myself, I also saw on WP:NOT: "..Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." If not in the article, do you think that some of this could be wikiquote material and then linked to the main article? Just an idea. TK 06:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Me again. Why not do what was done with YTMND with this? See List of YTMND fadsTK 07:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Sporkot was right, i asked for a clarification on this at the village pump and it indeed fails WP:NOR. My apologies for the trouble :/ However, we still need to find a better source for the information other than an extremely flaky website. I will now stop with the 50 million edits to this talk page, heh. TK 03:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey. Don't feel bad. You made a mistake, but at least you were civil and backed up what you were saying. That's quite a bit better than the average talk page contributor. --Sporkot 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

New section: "Notable Acheivements"?

What do you guys think about a section in this article about notable things 4chan has done in general? Personally, I think making "baby sister" the number one result on the poll for "What Your Anti-Drug?" is close to 2channel's "Masashi Tashiro - TIME Man of the Year" stunt. Somehow, I don't think it will stop there, so it may be a good idea to record them here. - Grobda, 03/17/06

If you can get a screenshot of it, that would be good. Overall, a cool idea.--Sporkot 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible first entry for this proposed new section. /b/ managed to get "Shark Bait - Moot" entered as the #19 entry on the Order of Succession website. I managed to catch a screenshot of it for records. What do the rest of you think? Should I put it up? - Grobda, April 9th, 2006

Japanese translation of 4chan link warning necessary?

I wanted to delete the addition of the Japanese translation of the warning next to the link to 4chan at the bottom of this article. I erred on the side of caution and didn't, though. I really doubt this is necessary, since this is the English Wikipedia, but I could be wrong. Thoughts? --Sporkot 02:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary, but I do not really have a problem with it staying either. —kotepho2006-03-22 11:55Z

I deleted it, it was pretty unecessary - I doubt many Japanese web users wanting to go on 4chan can't read basic English. It also made the article look ugly and as Sporkot said, this is the English language Wikipedia after all. Tphi 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Red & Green Eyes

What's up with this meme? I remember first seeing it come to /b/ August 2005, but I never really understood it. Is it linked to the 'desu' meme? Date: Today. Anonymous

Are you talking about Suiseiseki's eyes? CABAL 09:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't suppose there's anything to it that the site is still having troubles (as much as it's joked about, I wouldn't be suprised if it were under investigation)? Tphi 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have the same request, but for 4chan itself, specifically the img server. any help?

ATTENTION NEWGROUNDERS

Please do NOT post this kind of cruft on the talk page. Also, sign your edits, please. --Sporkot 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonimity section?

What the heck is the point of tagging the anonimity section for cleanup? If we're going after "original research", that's kind of ridiculous since any article about an internet site is going to come from firsthand knowledge and experience. Furthermore, most of these "citations" that people so desperately seek aren't going to be available for 4chan. Threads get pruned relatively fast, and as far as I know, there is no perpetual link or archive. As a result, many of the statements in this article will be based in fact, but will not have an available primary source. I understand we're trying to shape Wikipedia into a more credible information base, but it's getting ridiculous. --Sporkot 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

/b/ Blocked by BT?

I understand that a lot of people are getting a 404 error specifically when trying to get to the /b/ board. Apparently this is because the ISP people in BT have seen fit to block access to it by their customers due to the frequency of CP and other illegal content. It needs verification first, but if this is indeed the case I think it deserves a mention in the article because it means a large proportion of UK broadband users can't get to /b/ :'(

-M

I use BT and am getting 404s too. Can other Wikipedians confirm/deny? Tphi 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't up for discussion, I was making sure nobody minded before I altered the article to reflect the fact that BT users can't get to /b/ for the foreseeable future. I've put a reply on your thread, anyhow. It contains pretty much what I intend to put in the alteration.

/b/tard nature

--So one of these days, I was browsing 4chan and I found these user-made posts, that made me really interested in the true nature of a /b/tard:

Take out the REAL pedos, rascists and porn obsessed from the 4channers, Remove the crazy yaoi fan girls and the underage b/ posters who think they are hardcore, Then you have a core of intelligent, fun, witty, caring people who act drunk to relax (b/) or look at pretty artwork (c/ w/ a/ cm/ n/ etc) or fap to wind down after a tough day in a normal tough life.

You'd be amazed but the average b/tard is mature enough, with an IQ over 120, interest in politics, world events and people in general, love for free speech enough to tolerate a few sick fucks and no mercy for those who take themselves too seriously.

B/ is our way of winding down, dedramatizing stuff, having a laugh and toughening ourselves up to prepare for tomorrow morning when we have to face life again.

Many of us are not white, straight, in love with inaccessible little girls, american, healthy, rich, in a happy family, in a great job, convinced that our country is run intelligently, with a simple sexuality and no personal drama in our past or present... but on b/ no one cares, all is mirth, all are anonymous! For a short while we become the giddy crowd, the hooligans, the satires and the councellors without gender color or difference... We become legion and are free from all social restrain, free from censorship and free from ourselves. The trolls at the heart of b/ have understood how precious that is. Never underestimate anonymous, never judge us on what is displayed: what you are seeing is just us on the potent drug of utter freedom.

I'm sorry, but the true /b/tard nature is "mu". Besides, this isn't really a discussion page about 4chan. It's a discussion page about the 4chan article--Sporkot 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate on boards?

I'm sorry, I'm not very good at wikipedia but I'd like the 4Chan article to be as good as possible out of respect for Mother 4Chan. Would it be a worthy idea to elaborate on the function of the boards in the article and possibly create another section of the article on them? I think this should be done, seeing as most of the article focuses on memes and /b/ which seems to be the only thing people here see in 4Chan. I want to ask before I write this and make sure people know about the edit so some people can proofread what I wrote for factuality and formatting and whatnot after I actually write it. Input pl0z? Also is this signed properly? --Shinta 03:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom (where I placed them), and I agree that a short section be made for each of the boards of 4chan, perhaps including some of the former (closed) boards of the site. Ryulong 03:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the boards from not4chan were once on 4chan, though, so you may want to look into that. Ryulong 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They were. I'm not sure, however, that per board descriptions are entirely neccessary. We don't do that for 2chan or 2channel for a reason: the list would be really long. --Sporkot 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then maybe just the name of the boards are in order, maybe with links to the related articles on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone needs any sort of major description of the board for "Animals & Nature", however "High Resolution" or "Anime/Cute" may need a short description. Ryulong 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really, because they're on the website itself. The directory names (like /b/, /an/, etc.) are not shown by default and the board descriptions are in the rules. There is no need to add pointless length to this article. --Sporkot 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The board list is not shown on the website when one first goes there, and a list of the board names would not make this article that long. It can be placed before the See Also section, and not disrupt the article. Ryulong 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Cleanup

The word "infamous" regarding the random board theme days is opinionated. It may be infamouns to the members of 4chan, however, it is not notable to the rest of the world and is from the perspective only of perhaps some or all of the members of 4chan.

In the clause "For April 1, 2005 (a Friday), they " it is unclear whom "they" are.

The conclusion of that same sentence, "some say it banned furries every hour, and others say that they left it open for several days until banning everyone and closing /fur/." is unverifiable by definition and should be striken.

The clause "however the apparent popularity" is unverifiable and should be backed up by statistical data comparing it to all other known bboards if possible, or should be removed as non-factual.

The sentence beginning with "Although mostly unsuccessful, the notable case of the kopipe" is unverifiable, and evidence should be provided for the word "notable".

The clause "The Random board /b/, so coded as a tip-of-the-hat to the Nijiura board " is unverifiable.

Later in the same paragraph, "has now surpassed" should be changed to a specific date, and verifiable link provided for the entire statement.

The sentence beginning with "However, the humor and creativity of /b/'s residents" is opinionated, and not verifiable.

Fixed whatever I could with the suggestions. Ryulong 08:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold up, what? I think you're gravely mistaken here on a few things:

Regarding /fur/, the actions taken against those who posted there is verifiable. I just asked :one of the 4chan mods what occured:

<%Butter> everyone who posted in /fur/ got banned but they're definitely all unbanned now.
unless they did something else to be dickheads.
<%Butter> and supposedly their imageboard sprouted from that
[...]
<%Butter> there was a fur board so that we could crush the furries
<%Butter> it was an april fool's day joke
[..]
<%Butter> well I definitely know they were all banned, and they had to have been unbanned by now
because not too long ago every single ban was wiped

This is from the mouth of a 4chan mod. Unless you consider primary sources unreliable, I'd say that verifies it. If you want corroboration, might I suggest asking MrVacBob, who currently is a mod and was one at the time of this incident.

Regarding /b/ being a reference to 2chan's nijura board, it's painfully obvious. Nijura (well, it's most recent incarnation, anyway) is located at http://nov.2chan.net/b/futaba.htm . Notice that the board's subdirectory is /b/. If you venture a look at the content on this board and compare it to 4chan's /b/, you will see they are very much the same. Again, VacBob could act as a primary source.

Regarding statistical analysis as proof of 4chan's popularity, I think you're being ridiculous. We must compare it to all other known boards to verify this? 4chan is not a traditional forum, so it's not listed on something like Big Boards. As such, it's very difficult to get a cohesive and fair comparison.

Regarding continual updates of the postcount on /b/ (getting rid of "now has passed"), that's a near impossibility. Milestone post counts (like 9 million, etc.) are achieved in exponentially decreasing time periods from the previous one, so it is unpredictable when /b/ reaches the next such level. I say, if McDonald's can claim "Over a billion served", why not have "/b/ has more than X posts"?

What's astounding is that it seems that you ignored my earlier comments on this talk page about why verifiability is not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. I know I should be assuming good faith here, but they've been on this page for more than a week, and only one other person has commented on it.--Sporkot 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When I did the edits, I only tried to make the information more clear what was commented on. My changes can be seen here. Ryulong 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So what is 420chan?

I was recently browsing through a very anti-4chan message board, and I heard the phase 420chan. Obviously I had no intention of going to the site directly, so I decided to use wikipedia. Now I'm already familiar with the background/controversy that is not4chan, and can see it was mentioned in its own little section. But why was I forwarded into an article with no mention of this site? Inclusion plz? 86.133.33.135 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

420chan is another imageboard. There is nothing illegal on it, feel free to browse. Ashibakatock 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Except ALOT of CP.

Raids/Controversy

I've been looking at some other wiki pages for sites like YTMND and they mention conflicts with other sites and raids, such as the one aimed at Ebaumsworld (which 4chan participated in). I was wondering if 4chan's infamous sustained attacks on places like Habbo Hotel are worth mentioning. McSnuffy 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but we should mention that the 4chan mods actively ban for participating in invasions. --Sporkot 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But they really don't. I've seen a couple people get banned for the Linksys stuff, but Habbo threads and that Naruto-Kun invasion never resulted in bans. McSnuffy 04:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That you know of. Furthermore, it's kind of hard to pin down exactly who participated in invasions. Whenever someone *self-identifies*, they're usually taken care of. --Sporkot 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Perhaps the section should mention that the official policy of the moderators is to ban invaders, but many incidents slip through the cracks McSnuffy 12:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

MANY Habbo Raids are not stopped by mods.

I don't believe that a section should be added pertaining to raids, but I believe at least a passing reference should be made, seeing as 4chan has already been mentioned in the Ebaumsworld article concerning raids. Perhaps : "4chan members often participate in "raids" of other websites, such as Habbo Hotel and Ebaumsworld (Steampowered 09:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

POV not neutral

The last paragraph in the first section starting with "It is unclear what warranted..." is very clearly written by a proponent of the site and someone trying to defend the site's reputation. If someone would like to step forward and make this portion neutral POV that would be great, otherwise I will return and to do it. I do not visit 4chan, but upon reading this paragraph, having my own suspicions and then visiting /b/ I saw several images of illustrated underage girls in sexual context -readily available and displayed without digging around. I think then it is very clear why the site's access was blocked - and there doesnt need to be several colloquially written sentences feigning ignorance and obliviousness as to why that happened. Deusfaux 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave it two weeks, now have attempted a proper edit myself. Deusfaux 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING CONTENT

Ryulong, stop reverting my writing out. It's verfiiable and relevant information, fairly well written and not too long. Removing it over and over because having the word "cockmongler" on the page will magically attract a swarm of /b/-tards is fucking stupid, and beyond paranoid. Wikipedia has means for dealing with vandals. THESE MEANS ARE NOT YOU. CONTRIBUTE OR GET LOST MengHuo 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. since you're dense i should probably define the word "contribute" for you: contribute doesn't mean shredding articles of anything that might prompt trolling of any sort whatsoever. it means ADDING NEW STUFF of quality and removing stuff that is redundant or lacking quality (notice how it doesn't include removing everything that makes you afraid the page might be vandalized for 5 seconds?)

I'm sorry. But it is proven that this page is a magnet for /b/tard vandalism. There was a time I was browsing /b/ and I found a screenshot that showed that this page was blanked and replaced with the text "4chan is for porn" or something like it. There was even a time where this page was "Bel-Air"ed in two sections. I'm just being wary of what might happen, and I apologize that I removed content that you had written (I still don't think that "cock mongler" needs a mention on Wikipedia). Ryulong 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

and vandalism like that happens on a more than hourly basis to many sections of many pages on wikipedia, all the time. look around at the history lists for various religions, the KKK, george bush, etc. do they shear out content? no. they simply revert and go about their business. MengHuo 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I know vandalism happens on a minute-by-minute basis all over wikipedia. I just have a feeling that the really short list of memes might attract vandalism to many of the users of 4chan (there is a page somewhere in the "Wikipedia:" space that has a form of minor vandalism where users just add things to the end of lists). I wouldn't be suprised that if the list (cockmongler, pedobear, etc.) would randomly include the meme of the week (like the "An Hero" thing or whatever they're up to now). Ryulong 02:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

then we'll revert it if they do. argue that cockmongler, pedobear, et. al aren't the defining iconic memes of 4chan and you're being stupid. use the revert button on them, not me. that's all i'm saying MengHuo 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my comments on verifiability regarding 4chan memes, etc., Ashibaka. It's just a pain to verify most of this stuff.

That aside, both of you (Ryulong and MengHuo) need to stop this junk, ASAP. Moreso towards Ryulong, because you've been taking this cavalier attitude towards this page for much longer. You've continually ignored consensus opinions on what kind of content should/should not be allowed here, and you remove things without discussing them on the talk page. You just do. Cut it out, seriously. --Sporkot 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all of my edits to this page have been vandalism reverts. There was also the section clean up that's mentioned a bit farther up on this page, and then these recent editting conflicts. I've been watching this page for vandalism since I tried to list it for semi-protection because of the blanking I found posted on /b/ a few weeks ago. I'm sorry about the destructive edits, and I will solely make constructive ones (if any) to this article in the future. Ryulong 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong please stop reverting and putting back the Bel-Air part of the Meme section, it is unnecessary to be here. It is listed at the "memes and milestones" section with all the others.

Talk page trimming

This discussion page really needs to be trimmed of the idiotic comments from random editors who just wanted to be disruptive. I don't know what I should and should not archive, but the recent edit that I reverted is definitely something that should not be on a talk page, even if it is for 4chan. Ryulong 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the /b/tards who post it still feel like they are on 4chan. (Steampowered 09:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

child pornography

Child pornography is removed as fast as possible. This does not prevent frequent posts, most in /b/. It is not known if the moderators follow lAmerican law and report the posting to the Federal and State authorities —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.25.88 (talk • contribs).

However, moderators often miss it for upwards of 20 minutes, hence the meme, as a result of it either being buried in the replies of a topic, or because the moderator on duty is not actively moderating as they are occupied with other activities. Child pornography is not overwhelmingly prevalent, as it is sometimes only posted once a day, and almost always during the act of trolling. I do not believe that 4chan reports to the authorities, as the staff wishes not to draw to much attention to the posts of illegal material.

Copypasta isn't recent

As a veteran /b/tard, I'd like to point out that copypasta has been around for quite some time, even if it hasn't been called such forever. I'd just like to know if it says that due to lack of knowledge/poor wording/etc, or if it was intentional before I edit it. — Virak|talk 13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to it. As for the phenomenon being not-so-recent, you're right. In fact, it is very similar to the kopipe found on 2channel (i.e. the Yoshinoya rant). I tried to work that in there, but it just came out awkward.--Sporkot 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel raids

Are the Habbo Hotel raids by 4chan really that notable that they require mentioning in the 4chan article? I've been constantly removing mentions of the raid because of another conversation higher up, that never had a consensus on the notability of the raids. Should they be mentioned, or should it just be chalked up to /b/tardism bleeding into Wikipedia? Ryulong 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Raids in general should at least be mentioned. /b/ has preformed numerous raids in the past on websites/forums. You could make brief mention of notable raids, such as the July 12th Habbo Raid or the e-Baums/YTMND war that 4chan was involved in.

"/b/ is the internet's asshole"

Seriously, where does this come from? Ryulong 01:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Disgruntled people who feel they've been "slighted" by 4chan. --Sporkot 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really an insult as much as it is a joke among /b/. As a /b/tard, I actually consider it as a bit of a compliment, and /b/ often refers to itself as the internet's asshole.. However, its not at all relevant to the article, so this removal was a good choice. (Steampowered 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

On my recent edits

I would like to discuss the changes I have been reverting and now have compromised to leaving.

"Anonymous" is not a descriptive title. "Anonymity", the state of being anonymous is.

"/b/radio" while new, should not say that other rival stations sucked

The sourdough bread thing was funny, but it, like any other meme, does not need to be linked to this article. That's what Wikiworld's page on 4chan is for.

Regardless of it being my username, I do not want to be a target for the users of the boards. I had my User page sprotected because of WatchtowerJihad sockpuppets, and I don't want to deal with /b/ vandalism. Ryulong 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List of 4chan memes

A seperate List of 4chan memes page obviously needs to be added. Anybody who would come to this page, whether a poster on 4chan or not, would benefit equally if not more from learning about the culture of 4chan, a major component of which is its memes, rather than about its history and background. We should not link to offsite wikis to get this job done.

To those who say 4chan is not large enough to justify this page, look at the number of unique posters counter on /b/, which is right below the posting form on the main imageboard page. Unless /b/ is experiencing massive problems at the time you check, you will see that at least 500 people have posts on /b/ at any given time, compared to 250 posters 6 or 7 months ago, and that doesn't even take into account the massive amount of leechers and non-contibutors who use /b/, let alone the unique posters on the rest of 4chan.

On the subject of the actual list of memes article, each description should be short and concise. A short description of the origin if available, including the year of its appearance, the meme's type or classification, a short description of how it is used, and perhaps a small example of it in action should be all that is included. If available, verification of the existence of the meme and the facts and origin surrounding it should be included, but due to the constant deletion of posts that would verify such things, this can sometimes be impossible.

A recent thread on /b/ explored the concept of how these memes should be classified, and I believe the classification groups introduced there would be very fitting for the purposes of this article. The groups are counter-memes, stand-alone memes, psuedo-memes, and combo-memes. A counter-meme would be a meme that is used in response to a thread or post on 4chan, examples of counter-memes would be NO U and LURK MOAR, which are usually used in response to insults, and stupidity regarding 4chan culture, respectively. Examples of stand-alone memes would be Cockmongler and Pedobear, as they are memes which are not often used in tandem with or in response to any post. A psuedo-meme would be something like the motivational posters often posted on /b/, or the "Reaction Guys" meme. The reason they are a psuedo-meme is because the only common characteristic they usually share is their template. Another example of a psuedo-meme would be memes that were spawned as a result of a minor variation to an existing meme. A psuedo-meme can also be used to refer to a meme that was either relatively short-lived or quite unpopular. As such, many psuedo memes and almost all forced memes should never be included, unless they are added with careful consideration. Combo memes would be memes which rely on eachother such as I DON'T BELIEVE IT and HABEEB IT, or WHAT IS A MAN, A MISERABLE PILE OF SECRETS. Combo memes can also be memes which have been made as a result of combination with another meme, such as the combination of "Around Blacks, Never Relax" and Snacks into "Around Snacks, Never Relax." All of these memes should also be bundled together under their respective headings, for example Habbo Hotel memes like "Pool's Closed" should be under HABBO HOTEL. These classifications are just suggestions, any other ideas or changes to this suggestion would be greatly appreciated. (Steampowered 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

There is a page. It can be found here on WikiWorld and it is linked in the 4chan article. We do not need a list at Wikipedia, as it would compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. In fact, the WikiWorld page was copied word for word and pasted into an article as it is shown above. Frankly, the WikiWorld page is sufficient for any and all information on the memes of 4chan. Ryūlóng 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Though useful, the WikiWorld page is a bit too indepth for quick reference by someone who has heard 4chan mentioned in passing or for the learning needs of a fledgling anonymous. For the uses of wikiworld, the article is sufficient, but Wikipedia requires something a bit more concise and less bloated. Also, in the event WikiWorld goes under or the Wikiworld article experiences changes that are detrimental to its viability as a source or reference, it would be good to have an established list hosted here. Also, the idea I proposed introduces useful ways to classify and organize memes in a way that is a bit more presentable and obviously quite different. Though I won't fight for it, going down kicking and screaming, I still believe that the addition of a meme page would be quite beneficial to readers. However, I in no way support the outright plagiarism of the list from Wikiworld. Though some users hate them, for most anonymouses and tripfags alike, the memes are what makes the community, and is a driving factor in their repeated visits to /b/ and the rest of 4chan. Seeing as how the inclusion of memes on wikipedia, whether seperated or included in the main page, has been a subject of debate on this page, I believe that we should put this to a vote. --(Steampowered 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)).

But the classification methods are contrite and have no real merit. Various memes that have appeared on 4chan are not in any way notable or should be mentioned in a serious encyclopedia. Lists of image macros will garner the various anonymous editors and it will be as big a magnet for vandalism as several articles on notable internet sites. There will more than likely be edit wars over which new meme deserves mention or if "DESU" will be copied and pasted over and over again. It is best to leave such information to other Wikis that are not focused on being serious, such as Encyclopædia Dramatica, Uncyclopedia, or WikiWorld. Ryūlóng 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However, 4chan itself and many other websites should never be mentioned in serious encyclopedias. But that may be beside the point. I think that a good compromise would be a VERY VERY short concise list of memes. Perhaps something like the list of OS-tans on Futaba Channel, or even passing mentions of Cockmongler, Pedobear, or at the very least the O RLY owl. Seeing as the O RLY owl is very prevalent, and use of it began in 4chan, that at the very least should be included in this article. Also, I don't see too much extra vandalism as a result of the memes being listed seperately, as this page already risks most of the rampant vandalism simply by existing here. However, I will not challenge the deletion of a new Meme page if it becomes the victim of such vandalism. I still believe the benefits far outweigh the risks, and I still believe the wikiworld page isn't quite the most reliable or sometimes even accurate reference. That is why I think we should add a page of our own, or at least passing mentions of memes that have made a difference, such as the O RLY owl. (Steampowered 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)).

The OS-tans and the O RLY? owl are mentioned on Wikipedia. I know I may have seen a section on Pedobear somewhere, however this may have been on the Wikiworld site. Still, a list of 4chan memes will attract vandalism like that seen on this page, and it would be hard to find good accepted memes (avoiding the Millhouse, Suiseiseki, and Gaston dilemmas). And the O RLY? owl is mentioned because it was published in an actual newspaper. Ryūlóng 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on the subject of finding good, accepted memes, and I do believe a page where thousands of Anonymous add in their forced memes and bullshit would be useless and degrading, and I think you made me see that. However, I still don't think it would hurt to add a very short mention, as in a couple of words or just the name with a link to an outside source or Wikipedia article. The only memes which should be added should be popular memes which have spread to or from other large internet forums, such as O RLY owl, maybe Pedobear, and probably OS-TANS should be mentioned, but not phrases like "I'D HIT IT" "FAP" or "FAIL"/"WIN". OS-TAN, and O RLY have articles, and I believe Pedobear's has been deleted and has been redirected to this article. tl;dr - Add mentions of the above-mentioned memes into the article so that people don't have to sift through thousands of inconsequential bullshit on the wikiworld article just to find the info they need on a few select memes. (Steampowered 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

BTW, I just checked, and it looks like Pedobear WAS deleted. As shown by the talk concerning its deletion, many people wanted it to be deleted or merged, as it already was mention in the 4chan article. That has obviously changed.

And then there would be the problems of finding verifiable resources on the memes, which will also be extremely difficult. Obviously, Pedobear was a victim of these problems, and so would an article containing a list of the "notable" memes of 4chan. Ryūlóng 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It would not be that hard to verify most of the facts surrounding the memes. A simple link to 4chan would suffice if it was something concerning the existence of these memes. A vast majority of articles concerning the memes or "fads" of various communities have no citation at all concerning many of those mentioned "fads" or memes. Also, of course I believe a seperate article is not good, as you convinced me. You must not have read that comment, I now believe we should give passing mention to at least a few of these memes, as many are integral to the understanding and research of this community. And also, the Pedobear article was NOT a victim of vandalism, it was instead a victim of redundancy. Simply including these memes in passing mention, as in one sentence, or including them in a small, small list would benefit this article. (Steampowered 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

BTW, if you think Pedobear and O RLY are the only things to spread from 4chan, there are more than just those, they are only the most recent. One example is Osakaphone, which was noteworthy enough to be featured on a national news program.

And then there are the guidelines at WP:MEME that we'll have to deal with, and 4chan wouldn't be a sufficient link for verifiability of the memes. Ryūlóng 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(You edited while I typed this up.) One example is Osakaphone, which was noteworthy enough to be featured on a national news program. Nevada-tan spilled over to America through 2chan, and the case is the same with WRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. Most of the memes I've mentioned have been relevant enough to both be verified and given at least their own section in other articles, what is the point in not mentioning them here? 4chan is obviously either an origin or at least a conduit for many internet memes. (Steampowered 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

I understand that you think that it would be hard to verify these memes, but all of them are linked to from the main List Of Internet Phenomenon page, and have been for quite some time. If they are big enough to be mentioned there, why don't they deserve at the very least a sentence of mention and citation similiar to the articles they came from? The WP:MEME guideline is not even a policy yet, but its guidelines are not enough to strike down the mention of any of the memes I talked about in my last comment. All of them have already been cited, anyway. I totally agree with you that we should not add piffle like BEL-AIR, or ~DESU, but why shouldn't we include memes that are actually notable? (Steampowered 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Because it is difficult to discern the notability of any meme that comes from 4chan. O RLY and the OS-tans are notable due to being published in reputable sources, WRYYYYYY has a mention on the Jojo's Bizzare Adventure page, and other long-term memes such as Cockmongler or Happy Negro will be difficult to source and be taken seriously. Ryūlóng 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Cockmongler or Happy Negro anymore. I dropped those halfway through the conversation, because, as I said more than twice, you convinced me that while possible, it would be a bit of a pain to verify them. What I just said in my last comment was that memes that clearly came into the English-speaking world through 4chan ought to be listed or at least mentioned on this main 4chan page, not on a seperate one. As such, I have changed the title of this section, as it does not involve the idea of a seperate page anymore. The memes I'm talking about listing are, as I list them again, Nevada-tan, Osakaphone, WRRRYYYYY, the OS-tans, and possibly Pedobear. I'm as interested in you as keeping this a nice, clean, verified, useful, and guideline-following article, and that's why I think we should mention the memes I mentioned. tl;dr - Only memes that have long-standing articles, and have verified information that shows their gateway into popular culture into 4chan should be included. And before you say that the other pages are just as much in violation of the guidelines as this article may risk being, take a look at the Nevada-tan article. Not only was it formerly a candidate for featured article, but I believe it was also peer verified. (Steampowered 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

(Damn, twelve line indent) Still, the information is sufficed by the List of Internet phenomena page, which lists WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, O RLY?, and the OS-Tans. While it would be difficult to expand upon them, I still believe that the non-serious sites can be used as a semi-reputable resource, as well as the already existing articles/lists. Ryūlóng 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(Now it's thirteen, lol.) Now, do you believe Osakaphone, which I believe originated from 4chan's /f/ board, and Nevada-tan, which spread from Japan to 4chan to the rest of the English-speaking websites, deserve mentions(also, I found those as the same page you listed, they were just hard to find)? I believe they do, but as this isn't encyclopedia or my article, I'd like to check first before we should consider going any further. (Steampowered 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Well, I've heard of Nevada-tan, but unless someone can find information from a news magazine/website, then she can be mentioned. The Osakaphone is completely new to me. Ryūlóng 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Nevada-tan and Osakaphone have their own articles. I saw an MSNBC article on Nevada-tan, and I remember watching MSBNC the day they showed Osakaphone on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. It seems to me that both are verifiable and relevant. The reason you can't remember them is because they were on 4chan before the last death, and you probably came to 4chan after that. Also, I think that we need to establish a new rule for this page, which addresses one of your concerns, and that would be no new memes should be ever be added unless 1. they are verifiable by at the very least a reputable news source and 2. a vote has been held and a general consensus has been reached saying that it should be added and meets WP's guidelines. Unless those guidelines are followed, it will be immediately be reverted, and if the meme mentions become a big problem for this article, they will eventually become fair game for immediate deletion. And one last thing, do you want the meme mentions to become a list and a new section in the article, or should they have a sentence or paragraph dedicated to them in another? (Steampowered 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Osakaphone doesn't have an article. And perhaps we can mention some of the more notable memes that have other articles as mentions in Memes for the 4chan article. Ryūlóng 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Osakaphone has an article here : Bananaphone. Bananaphone was the song used for the Osakaphone animation. (Steampowered 00:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)).

Then perhaps a short list of the notable memes that are listed elsewhere can be added under the meme section, however it should be watched carefully. Ryūlóng 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a list will be risky and will need to be watched carefully, as it gives more of an impression that anyone can just add anything without consulting with everyone else. So if an unacceptable number of edits are made to add memes that do not have proper documentation or relevance, and it becomes too much of a hassle to stop such vandalism, than we downgrade to listing them in a paragraph. If it doesn't stop, we revert that section to its current state, and scrap the idea of a list of memes permanently. Does that sound good? (Steampowered 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Sounds perfectly fine to me. I think just a simple list in the memes section will be sufficient, and then we watch for ridiculous additions to the short list on the page. Ryūlóng 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. While this is pretty off-subject, but does relate to verifiability, do you think a link to one of 4chan's news posts would suffice as a good citation for the problems with Paypal, Yowcow etc.? And on the subject of citations, do you think perhaps the mention of the Soviet Sunday theme days should be removed? I don't see how we could verify it here, though I have seen it with my own two eyes on a number of occasions. (Steampowered 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

I think a link to news posts would be good. And I've been trying to push for the Soviet Sunday thing to be removed. It's only happened maybe twice. Ryūlóng 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the entire board being Soviet-themed, its only happened twice that I've seen. But there have been numerous threads which have used embedded flash and html to make it and other themes a thread-wide or page-wide theme. Soviet Sunday itself is not that notable in terms of being relevant, but theme hacks appear enough on 4chan to be notable. It's not easy to show verification of specific themes, so I'm going to erase Soviet Sunday from the article. Perhaps a mention of just the themes would be acceptable with no verification, as it seems to be the case on Something Awful Forums with the mention of templates.

Let me nip this limited discussion on the bud. This has already been discussed on this talk page, under the headings "Cleanup" and "Memes back into the article". The consensus was that we do not create a list of memes for an article. Note also that 2 people is not consensus. Wait until someone else comments on your grand ideas before you go ahead. --Sporkot 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of me creating an new and unnecessary topic concerning the list of memes, I don't agree with you, Sporkot. Before I changed the title of this discussion, it was something like "Seperate Article for a list of 4chan memes." The conversations you cited only concerned a list of memes contained within this article, not in a seperate one. And while I do admit that this conversation sounds like it has drifted into that topic, it's useless to complain about this discussion's location now. Also, as I remember, the conversation you cited discussed the removal of the then-current list of memes. This conversation concerns the addition of a much more professional, reliably verified, and relevant list that, most importantly, will not be modified without prior consensus. This means that there should be no more arguments over the removal of newly added memes from the list, as the list will not be allowed to be modified unless prior consensus has been reached. I know that this article should not take on large modifications without general consensus, and I made that perfectly clear in the above conversation. As you can see, I have not edited the meme section of this article, as I was waiting for more input and agreement before making the change. So please, enlighten me with your opinion instead of marching in and contributing not much of anything to this conversation. By the way, here is how I would like to implement the proposed changes:

Though many memes often do not become popular outside of the 4chan community, some have grown to the point where they have become widely recognized internet phenomenons. Some of these popular memes originated inside of 4chan, while others used 4chan as a conduit to spread to the English-speaking world. These memes include:

All of those are relevant and verifiable. As you have requested that we have more people give their input and approval concerning this new addition, I think we should put this to a vote. Obviously, I agree with what has been proposed during this conversation. (Steampowered 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

I love how your personal attack is veiled under the guise of "impartiality" and "waiting for consensus." Unfortunately, your comments -- nay, the very existence of this debate -- proves that you have not read the sections I cited (or the rest of this talk page, for that matter). For example, the section "Memes back in the article" does discuss the legitimacy of ANY separate article specifically for meme cataloging. As Ashibaka put it:

Read the verifiability policy at WP:V. The memes are cataloged at WikiWorld and should stay there.

This comment was then seconded by Tphi, Humblefool and myself, all regular contributors to this article. When the issue was pressed further, kotepho made it very clear why specific memes, be they listed separately or in the main article, have no place here:

What exactly is encyclopedic about a list of memes? It does not meet WP:V (and borderline on WP:NOR)
and is against WP:NOT. This is 4chan's entry in an something that purports to be an encyclopedia not 4chan's own wiki.

Note that these comments were made on this talk page more than 4 months ago. The consensus was clear: No specific memes can be listed on this page. It does not matter how "professional" or "reliable" you believe this new process will be. Why? Memes, by their very nature, are fleeting and transient. By the time we reached "consensus" on each individual meme, it may not even exist within the 4chan community! Then, the whole debate over said meme was merely a waste of time and effort that could be spent improving other articles on this site. The earlier debate fully understood this point, thus it did not need to be made explicit. Since you seem to favor verbosity, let me spell it out again just to be safe: There should not be any kind of list, collection, compilation, etc. of 4chan memes on Wikipedia. Not in any form. Not in any article. Period. --Sporkot 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I presume that the "personal attack" you speak of is in my first paragraph, the one preceding my example of an acceptable list, as in my "So please, enlighten me with your opinion instead of marching in and contributing not much of anything to this conversation" comment. I assure that was nothing more than a response to what I considered a condescending comment from you, and as I did not wish for you to create an air of superiority, I countered your statement. We do not need to condescend eachother, and though there were no direct attacks, your second post was just as condescending as the first was. The line must be drawn here, before this turns into an edit war, a flamewar, or us trying to flaunt our e-penises. I don't want this to sink to that level.

Anyway, without a doubt I respect your dedication to the rules and guidelines established by the Wikipedian community, and I don't take offense that you use that as the basis of your argument. However, I, too, have paid attention to the guidelines. In fact, I've read them 3 times again since the beginning of this debate, not to mention countless times before, once when I first suggested this, once because of Ryulong, and once because of you. I've checked my proposal against it each time, and I now believe that my proposal is refined enough to be in this article. I totally agree with you on the fact that the previous list was complete and utter shite, but how is my proposal and list of approved memes affected by a decision concerning the completely unprofessional list that was up before I proposed this? I am merely listing other sourced and completely verified articles concerning memes that have had an effect on internet culture in a significant way, mainly by spreading past the boundaries of a small community (in relation to the the internet at large) and becoming something larger than just a meme that exists in two or three forums. We need not verify anything within the 4chan article concerning the memes, since no information concerning them is listed here besides their names, and the ones I have listed have all their shit together as far as I know. Unless you consider "Though many memes often do not become popular outside of the 4chan community, some have grown to the point where they have become widely recognized internet phenomenons. Some of these popular memes originated inside of 4chan, while others used 4chan as a conduit to spread to the English-speaking world. These memes include:" to be unverifiable or original research, than the borderline NOR violation and V violations the last group of people spoke of are moot points. On the subject of reading the discussions on this page, I obviously have, as I have already cited them numerous times. Instead, I think that you might not have read this entire debate, but neither of our opinions matter on the issue of whether we have read each post or not, as we obviously have read enough to form coherent arguments.

On the subject of memes not being important, or relative enough, or that they have their fleeting moments of fame before they become buried forever, it has been shown that some memes have had a significant effect on internet culture, and that some of them are still going strong. And if you want to argue against that, then I suggest we all start working on tearing down all the YTMND fad references and Something Awful prank and fad references too, as they are just as irrelevant today and are just as big targets for vandalism as any short meme list in this article would be. Now, I'm not sure if you realized what I was saying when me and Ryu came to an agreement on what the list should be like. I proposed a short list containing all 5 of the memes I had verified as both relevant and as having a significant effect on internet culture. No memes are to be added, AT ALL, unless they are verified to meet the same requirements. Happy Negro, Cockmongler, An Hero, Anonymous does not forgive, BIX NOOD, ~desu, and delayclose.jpg need not apply, as they are neither huge, widespread memes or relevant to internet culture, though they do all fit the requirement of having originated in 4chan. It won't take 3 months for a meme to be put here, and god knows with all the reposts on 4chan, no meme is going to dissappear anytime soon, and it wouldn't matter if it does, as if it was relevant enought to be argued over, it was obviously relevant enough to internet culture and history to be added even after its time has passed. In short, the list proposal works, I don't hate you, I'm not expressly trying to attack and won't make it seem like I am anymore, I want to keep this article just as clean, polished, and relevant as you do, and the big 4chan memes I have listed, and any others that happen to spread from 4chan and become as big as any of the ones I have listed, all deserve a spot on this page as they were integral to not only 4chan but the current state of internet culture as a whole. Oh, and on the subject of Wikiworld, if it's not good enough quality to be listed here, its not a good enough source of information to be linked to, either. And the fact that something reached consensus months ago doesn't mean that consensus completely applies to a newer, better executed idea in the here and now. (Steampowered 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Now this (being the article as I see it at 7:06pm PDT on Jul 26th) is a-ok. I'm totally fine with mentioning that some memes have become much more popular, so long as they are not listed in any way. Good job, Steampowered. --Sporkot 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.